Small Mandrakk additions

[Deagonx]

A name being written on something is still a form of it being highlighted

It's irrelevant. I am being far more specific than just "highlighting" a being. You making it less specific and saying "what about this other guy" is not a counter argument, it's deflection.

I'm not talking about "highlighting" or "representation." I am referring to a written name. Any discussion about something other than a written name is just an attempt to change the subject.

Probably because you know how stupid it looks to try and argue that one of the two written name is the white spaces true name, but the other written name is just there to signify some being beyond the wall who isn't drawn on the map, and we should ignore that the author said the exact opposite of this because of your personal ignorance of how English works.

the Source being written on the Overvoid doesn’t mean it’s the same as it

Grant Morrison said otherwise.

And we know that what you’re saying isn’t the case because they’re listed as separate entities in The Source Wall section

No, they aren't. As proven, it's perfectly normal in English to name two consubstantial entities in that fashion. Your interpretation isn't canon just because you want it to be.

As I said before, this is not the New Testament.

You have a remarkable talent for missing the point. I don't care if it's the new testament or not. You are making an argument that the grammar used in the description of the Source Wall establishes them as separage beings.

I have proven, definitively, that this is just your interpretation and not a fact, because this exact same grammar is used in other circumstances to say exactly the same thing Grant said in his interviews.

Your only basis for choosing one interpretation over the other is personal inconvenience, as this silliness was your last hail Mary for granting Mandrakk an ability he clearly doesn't have.

No amount of you plugging your ears and pretending otherwise makes that go away. Grant's statements never contradicted the material, the map never described them as separate, you simply want that to be the case because reality -- as per usual -- is debunking your argument.

The Source is the white page. Cry about it if you need to.

 

[Xearsay]

Probably because you know how stupid it looks to try and argue that one of the two written name is the white spaces true name, but the other written name is just there to signify some being beyond the wall who isn't drawn on the map, and we should ignore that the author said the exact opposite of this because of your personal ignorance of how English works.

This is literally just a massive leap in logic. Why would the Overvoids appearance as a white space necessitate that the Source has to be the same as the Overvoid? The Overvoids appearance as a white space is based off how it was presented in Final Crisis. The Source was never presented in such a manner in comic book material pertaining to Grants cosmology.

Grant Morrison said otherwise.

Too bad it contradicts the comics.

No, they aren't. As proven, it's perfectly normal in English to name two consubstantial entities in that fashion. Your interpretation isn't canon just because you want it to be.

You have not posted a single lick of comic book material evidence from Grants cosmology to support this. And the very manner in which you’re trying to interpret the statement from the map, is in a way that uniquely pertains to Christian theology based off the context and already established understanding of God as a trinity.

You have a remarkable talent for missing the point. I don't care if it's the new testament or not. You are making an argument that the grammar used in the description of the Source Wall establishes them as separage beings.

I have proven, definitively, that this is just your interpretation and not a fact, because this exact same grammar is used in other circumstances to say exactly the same thing Grant said in his interviews.

Typing these long tangents isn’t gonna make your ridiculous argument sound any better.

The reason your interpretation of “the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost” is not applicable to the “beyond lies Monitor Mind, The Source, and the unknowable” is because the holy trinity comes from Christian theology where that unique interpretation exist due to an already established understanding of God as a trinity.

The same cannot be said for the statement from the Multiversity map because the context isn’t within Christian theology and the Overvoid and the Source were never established as manifestations of a larger Godhead in the comic book material of Grants cosmology. As I’ll say now, post evidence of comic book material from Grants cosmology that supports the Overvoid and The Source being manifestations of a larger godhead or I’m reporting you for stonewalling.

 

[Transcending]

Also about Grant Morrison's statements, it should be noted that the newer writer, Scott Snyder considers the Source to be a lower form of the Overvoid, and the Presence to be an even lower form.

 

[Deagonx]

the newer writer, Scott Snyder considers the Source to be a lower form of the Overvoid, and the Presence to be an even lower form.

No, he doesn't. He described the Overvoid as "less manifest." That doesn't correlate to power.

 

[Vondoom]

I think Scott Snyder is like this Overvoid = The Source > The presence >>The hands and everything and everyone in his cosmology.

 

[Deagonx]

. Why would the Overvoids appearance as a white space necessitate that the Source has to be the same as the Overvoid?

I never said anything remotely like this. You've completely misunderstood the argument, again. The white space on the map has two names written on it. (1) The Overvoid and (2) the Source. Both names are situated along the rim of the multiverse, on opposite poles of the map. Your argument is that (1) is the actual name of the white space that it's written on, but that (2) is not another name of the white space, but is written there to indicate that this unrelated entity is just "beyond the wall" somewhere. This is a ludicrous suggestion, and directly contradicts what the author told us.

You have not posted a single lick of comic book material evidence from Grants cosmology to support this.

You've missed the point, yet again. You are asserting that the wording used in the description of the "Source Wall" separates the Source and the Overvoid. My counter-example establishes that the wording is compatible with consubstantiality. Your entire argument up to this point was that Grant's statements "contradicted the material" because of the wording in the description. This has been proven to be nothing more than your interpretation, not something the map actually says or does, which means your basis for rejecting Grant's statements is based on opinion, not fact.

The fact that this wording: "The X, the Y, and the Z" is used for consubstantial beings completely debunks your argument, which was based on the wording. I don't need to prove a consubstantial interpretation of the wording is correct, I only needed to prove that it was possible. Now that I have, your claim that "Grant contradicted the comics" is disproven. There is no contradiction with the sentence itself, he only contradicted your opinion of what it meant.

 

[Transcending]

No, he doesn't. He described the Overvoid as "less manifest." That doesn't correlate to power.

That does correlate to being different beings of a whole

 

[Deagonx]

That does correlate to being different beings as a whole

That depends entirely on how you define "beings" and isn't particularly relevant to the debate about whether or not they're the same thing.

For example, Snyder's works directly indicate that the Presence and the Source are the same. Williamson's works directly indicate that the Overvoid and the Presence are the same thing. Grant's works directly indicate that the Overvoid and Source are the same thing. There are numerous other examples of this, but those are the most recent and prominent.

However, I don't interpret this to mean that "Source" "Presence" and "Overvoid" are nothing more than names the way that "Superman" and "Clark Kent" are just names that refer to a single Kryptonian. I don't think most people argue that. It is more along the lines of saying that these beings are clearly intertwined and represent a unified divinity. How we would characterize these names (aspects, avatars, components, manifestations, etc) is less obvious, but the whole of DC history has been pretty clear that these titles have important connections to each other. Everyone who has tried to deny that just ends up twisting themselves into knots and otherwise jumping through hoops to explain away the vast body of evidence to the contrary.

The Overvoid is, by far, the newest and youngest of these three (the Presence in 1940, the Source in 1971), and you have several direct statements from the Overvoid's creator that it is literally just another name for the Source. He even wrote "the Source" on the Overvoid in his map.

 

[Transcending]

I can agree that they are connected, just as more manifest versions.

 

[Deagonx]

I can agree that they are connected, just as lesser manifest version.

The word "manifest" as an adjective means 'easily understood' or 'readily perceived.' The Presence has a distinct human-like conception that makes him more 'easily understood' than something more abstract like a white void. Being 'less manifest' does not mean you are less powerful.

Also, Scott didn't say "lesser" so don't pretend he did.

 

[Vondoom]

That depends entirely on how you define "beings" and isn't particularly relevant to the debate about whether or not they're the same thing.

For example, Snyder's works directly indicate that the Presence and the Source are the same. Williamson's works directly indicate that the Overvoid and the Presence are the same thing. Grant's works directly indicate that the Overvoid and Source are the same thing. There are numerous other examples of this, but those are the most recent and prominent.

However, I don't interpret this to mean that "Source" "Presence" and "Overvoid" are nothing more than names the way that "Superman" and "Clark Kent" are just names that refer to a single Kryptonian. I don't think most people argue that. It is more along the lines of saying that these beings are clearly intertwined and represent a unified divinity. How we would characterize these names (aspects, avatars, components, manifestations, etc) is less obvious, but the whole of DC history has been pretty clear that these titles have important connections to each other. Everyone who has tried to deny that just ends up twisting themselves into knots and otherwise jumping through hoops to explain away the vast body of evidence to the contrary.

The Overvoid is, by far, the newest and youngest of these three (the Presence in 1940, the Source in 1971), and you have several direct statements from the Overvoid's creator that it is literally just another name for the Source. He even wrote "the Source" on the Overvoid in his map.

Isn't it better to just say all three(3) are connected but not the same? Cause everyone has different views and still correct.

 

[Xearsay]

This is a ludicrous suggestion, and directly contradicts what the author told us.

Appealing to absurdity is not a counter argument. And as I already expressed, my stance/position being that the Overvoid is the white space and that the Source cannot be the same as the Overvoid is based off 1) Final Crisis showcasing that the Overvoid is the white space, while never depicting the Source in such a manner. And 2) the Multiversity map listing them as separate things. So if Grant Morrison’s statements run contradictory to the material than Grant Morrison’s statements are simply wrong and useless.

My counter-example establishes that the wording is compatible with consubstantiality. Your entire argument up to this point was that Grant's statements "contradicted the material" because of the wording in the description. This has been proven to be nothing more than your interpretation, not something the map actually says or does, which means your basis for rejecting Grant's statements is based on opinion, not fact.

The fact that this wording: "The X, the Y, and the Z" is used for consubstantial beings completely debunks your argument, which was based on the wording. I don't need to prove a consubstantial interpretation of the wording is correct, I only needed to prove that it was possible.

The two sentences sharing the same grammatical form/wording does not prove the ideas that define the manner in which they can be understood are applicable to one another. What determines whether the ideas surrounding the manner in which something can be understood is context. And as I’ve already went over, consubstantiality in the manner in which you’re referring to is something that exist unique to the context of Christian theology where the understanding of God as a divine trinity has already been established. Hence why within Christian doctrine that it is possible for that interpretation to arise.

The Multiversity map does not have this context. Therefore conflating the ideas surrounding the way “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is understood with the way “beyond lies Monitor Mind, the Source and the unknowable” is understood, is not possible.

And btw, I’m still waiting for you to post comic book material evidence from Grants cosmology of the Overvoid and the Source being separate aspects of some larger godhead. So are you going to post evidence or admit that it doesn’t exist? Or do I have to report for stonewalling?

 

[Deagonx]

1) Final Crisis showcasing that the Overvoid is the white space, while never depicting the Source in such a manner. And 2) the Multiversity map listing them as separate things.

So your argument is 1) the fact that they didn't use the name "The Source" to refer to the white space in the story and 2) your personal interpretation of a phrase which could just as easily be interpreted to mean consubstantiality.

The Multiversity map does not have this context

I agree, the map is vague as to which interpretation is valid. It lacks context to definitively assert consubstantiality. It also lacks context to definitively assert separation. That's the whole point, you assumed a priori that it referred to a separation, and used it as evidence of separation, but it's not evidence. It relies upon your foregone conclusion of it's meaning in the absence of context that asserts your meaning.

But there's nothing in the text itself saying it's one interpretation or the other, and as I've already made clear, I think the fact that the white space is labelled with both names, and the repeated statements from the author asserting their mutual identity is adequate context. The only other context you've given so far is "they didn't call the white space the Source in Final Crisis" which is an argument from silence, and not at all evidence.

 

[Xearsay]

So your argument is 1) the fact that they didn't use the name "The Source" to refer to the white space in the story and 2) your personal interpretation of a phrase which could just as easily be interpreted to mean consubstantiality.

I agree, the map is vague as to which interpretation is valid. It lacks context to definitively assert consubstantiality. It also lacks context to definitively assert separation. That's the whole point, you assumed a priori that it referred to a separation, and used it as evidence of separation, but it's not evidence. It relies upon your foregone conclusion of it's meaning in the absence of context that asserts your meaning.

But there's nothing in the text itself saying it's one interpretation or the other, and as I've already made clear, I think the fact that the white space is labelled with both names, and the repeated statements from the author asserting their mutual identity is adequate context. The only other context you've given so far is "they didn't call the white space the Source in Final Crisis" which is an argument from silence, and not at all evidence.

I never said the map is “vague as to which interpretation is valid.” The Source and the Overvoid being listed separately is not an interpretation or something I assumed but rather something I observed that’s evident from how the statement is grammatically structured. Similarly to how the sky appearing blue during the day is not an interpretation or assumption but something that is evident from how it appears. However you seem to have admitted that this consubstantiality thing cannot be asserted so this aspect of our argument is essentially done.

I digress, the Overvoid and the Source having both their names written out on the white space doesn’t mean they’re the same entity. Them being written outside the map is literally just means that they’re outside the map. Any other assertion would need some type of evidence to back it up.

As far as I’m aware your only evidence has been “Grant Morrison said so.” Which isn’t a valid argument mainly because Grant Morrison claiming the two entities are the same does not mean it is true. Especially when it has no comic book material basis from Grants own cosmology and runs contradictory to the map listing them separately. If we accepted random writer statements that contradict or have no basis in the material, then we might as well upgrade Sentry to Outerversal.

 

[Deagonx]

The Source and the Overvoid being listed separately is not an interpretation or something I assumed but rather something I observed that’s evident from how the statement is grammatically structured

I have proven definitively that this is not the case. Multiple interpretations are possible. Saying your preferred one is "evident" is just begging the question. The structure doesn't support your argument. So what does? Certainly not Grant's statements or the way the white space is labeled with both of their names.

I digress, the Overvoid and the Source having both their names written out on the white space doesn’t mean they’re the same entity. Them being written outside the map is literally just means that they’re outside the map

They aren't outside the map. Both of them are written on the white space. The map doesn't end at the Source Wall. The white space is part of the map, it's labeled with two names. One is the name of the white space, you're saying the other isn't, despite also being written on the white space.

Especially when it has no comic book material basis from Grants own cosmology and runs contradictory to the map listing them separately. If we accepted random writer statements that contradict or have no basis in the material

It does not contradict anything in the material, and the basis is that both names of the white space are written on it. Your claim that one of the labels is naming the void, and the other isn't, but just referring to an unrelated being, is illogical. Why would we treat the two names differently if they're both written on the void and the author said they're both the name of the void?

 

[Transcending]

Also, Scott didn't say "lesser" so don't pretend he did.

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/983668110034866176/1030651661582090250/Screenshot_20221015-065039.jpg

 

[Deagonx]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/983668110034866176/1030651661582090250/Screenshot_20221015-065039.jpg

The word lesser isn't in that quote.

 

[Transcending]

The word "manifest" as an adjective means 'easily understood' or 'readily perceived.' The Presence has a distinct human-like conception that makes him more 'easily understood' than something more abstract like a white void. Being 'less manifest' does not mean you are less powerful.

We weren't debating on who was more powerful however

The word lesser isn't in that quote.

"Even less" was there, same meaning as lesser

 

[Xearsay]

I have proven definitively that this is not the case. Multiple interpretations are possible. Saying your preferred one is "evident" is just begging the question. The structure doesn't support your argument. So what does? Certainly not Grant's statements or the way the white space is labeled with both of their names.

No, you’re conflating the grammatical form of a sentence with the interpretation of a sentence. They’re two different things. Me telling you the grammatical form of the statement being that it list the Source and the Overvoid separately is not an interpretation but a fact based on appearance.

They aren't outside the map. Both of them are written on the white space. The map doesn't end at the Source Wall. The white space is part of the map, it's labeled with two names. One is the name of the white space, you're saying the other isn't, despite also being written on the white space.

It’s called the “map of the Multiverse.” Meaning what’s being featured and depicted as a part of the map is the Multiverse. This white space you’re talking about isn’t part of what’s considered to be the “map.” And as I said yesterday, the Source being written on the Overvoid doesn’t mean we should assume that it is the Overvoid.

It does not contradict anything in the material, and the basis is that both names of the white space are written on it. Your claim that one of the labels is naming the void, and the other isn't, but just referring to an unrelated being, is illogical. Why would we treat the two names differently if they're both written on the void and the author said they're both the name of the void?

Hmm, let me think, maybe because the Overvoid legitimately has actual material basis from Grants cosmology for being the Void via the Final Crisis and Multiversity origin stories and the Source has nothing.

 

[Robo432343]

isn't this derailing

 

[Deagonx]

Even less" was there, same meaning as lesser

So we agree it doesn't say "lesser?" Great.

 

[Deagonx]

Me telling you the grammatical form of the statement being that it list the Source and the Overvoid separately is not an interpretation but a fact based on appearance

No. The same grammatical form is used for consubstantiality.

This white space you’re talking about isn’t part of what’s considered to be the “map.”

Says who?

And as I said yesterday, the Source being written on the Overvoid doesn’t mean we should assume that it is the Overvoid.

Yet "Overvoid" is literally written on the Overvoid in the same fashion.

the Source has nothing

Except it's name on the void, just like Overvoid.

 

[Robo432343]

someone should close this thread

 

[Xearsay]

No. The same grammatical form is used for consubstantiality.

That doesn’t contradict what I’m saying because when Christian theology refers to the statement “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” it’s still listing separate entities. These separate aspects however are unified under a Godhead which they share the same essence/substance, hence why they’re consubstantial.

Says who?

The map. Specifically at the top part where it says “the map of the Multiverse.”

Yet "Overvoid" is literally written on the Overvoid in the same fashion.

Except it's name on the void, just like Overvoid.

You keep saying “but what about the Overvoid being written there” when the Overvoids identity as a void is based off how it’s presented in the Final Crisis and Multiversity origin stories, and not because it’s name is written outside the map. Continuing to spam this same comment in reply to my rebuttal is stonewalling.

 

[Deagonx]

it’s still listing separate entities

It literally isn't.

The map. Specifically at the top part where it says “the map of the Multiverse.

And how does that phrase exclude the white space?

when the Overvoids identity as a void is based off how it’s presented in the Final Crisis and Multiversity origin stories, and not because it’s name is written outside the map.

You're missing the point. We know, definitively, that that's its name. It's written on the white space. So is "The Source" in the exact same fashion. That's evidence they're the same.

Even better, the author literally told us this is the case.

Continuing to spam this same comment in reply to my rebuttal is stonewalling

A point doesn't go away simply because you don't like it. I don't care if you consider it stonewalling.

 

[Transcending]

So we agree it doesn't say "lesser?" Great.

My point stands, and I didn't quote "lesser". Please focus on the actual point instead of playing with semantics and red herring.

 

[Vondoom]

someone should close this thread

I'm in support, needs to be done from scratch again.
Thread is kinda of a mess with derailing and aggression/beefing.

 

[Xearsay]

It literally isn't.

This is not a counter argument. The grammatical form of the sentence even when used in Christian theology to refer to consubstantial entities is still listing separate entities. These separate entities just share the same essence under a godhead that unifies them.

And how does that phrase exclude the white space.

It’s because it’s the “map of the multiverse” and the Overvoid is not part of the multiverse. And therefore not part of the map.

You're missing the point. We know, definitively, that that's its name. It's written on the white space. So is "The Source" in the exact same fashion. That's evidence they're the same.

Even better, the author literally told us this is the case.

A point doesn't go away simply because you don't like it. I don't care if you consider it stonewalling.

This is a leap in logic. Us knowing the Overvoid is the Overvoid due to Final Crisis and Multiversity doesn’t prove the Source is also the Overvoid.

It has nothing to do with me not liking your point. It has to do with you not actually providing counter points and just spamming the same initial point over again. Which causes the debate to go nowhere.

 

[Deagonx]

This is not a counter argument

All you said is "it is." I don't need to offer anything more substantial than what you yourself said.

It’s because it’s the “map of the multiverse” and the Overvoid is not part of the multiverse. And therefore not part of the map.

This is circular reasoning.

Us knowing the Overvoid is the Overvoid due to Final Crisis and Multiversity doesn’t prove the Source is also the Overvoid.

Sure. We know that because their names are both written on the white space and because the author told us so. There's also no canon material contradicting it.

 

[Deagonx]

My point stands, and I didn't quote "lesser". Please focus on the actual point instead of playing with semantics and red herring

No. My objection was that you used the word "lesser" when Scott didn't. If you don't want to have a semantic argument, don't misquote authors to make a point. He never said lesser, he said 'less manifest.'

 

[Transcending]

No. My objection was that you used the word "lesser" when Scott didn't. If you don't want to have a semantic argument, don't misquote authors to make a point. He never said lesser, he said 'less manifest.'

I didn't quote "lesser" however. If I had said Scott said "lesser", you would have had a point, but I said lesser, meaning I wasn't referring specifically to what he said but instead only to the meaning of what he said. Lesser brings across the same point.

 

[Deagonx]

I wasn't referring specifically to what he said but instead only to the meaning of what he said. Lesser brings across the same point.

If it means the same thing why are you sneaking in a different word than what he actually said? You could just quote him directly and it'd be understood the same way right?

Oh right, because they don't actually mean the same thing and you're changing the word to make it seem like he said something he never said.

 

[Transcending]

If it means the same thing why are you sneaking in a different word than what he actually said?

Sneaking in? Do you think I have some sort of photographic memory to remember every scan I have ever seen, let alone the exact words?

You could just quote him directly and it'd be understood the same way right?

Again, I was talking based on the memory of the scan. I hadn't seen that scan in months. I don't store all scans to have ever existed, only the ones which I deem important and this one wasn't something I considered important.

Oh right, because they don't actually mean the same thing and you're changing the word to make it seem like he said something he never said.

This is Appealing to Motive. They mean the exact same thing. Can you explain how they are different?

 

[Deagonx]

They mean the exact same thing. Can you explain how they are different?

Im not going to have an argument about this where you pretend they mean the same thing. If they have the same meaning, then use the one the author said instead of lying.

 

[Transcending]

Im not going to have an argument about this where you pretend they mean the same thing. If they have the same meaning, then use the one the author said instead of lying.

I am not pretending they mean the same thing, they do actually mean the same thing. This is why I asked you to clarify on why you think they don't and you still haven't. And the second part of your post is straight up Ad Nauseum, I literally explained why I used "lesser" and you just repeated your argument,

 

[Deagonx]

If they mean the same thing, then there's no issue saying what he actually said.

 

[Transcending]

If they mean the same thing, then there's no issue saying what he actually said.

There is which is what I explained in my earlier post. Did you read it? I will quote it here for you-

Sneaking in? Do you think I have some sort of photographic memory to remember every scan I have ever seen, let alone the exact words?

Again, I was talking based on the memory of the scan. I hadn't seen that scan in months. I don't store all scans to have ever existed, only the ones which I deem important and this one wasn't something I considered important.

This is Appealing to Motive. They mean the exact same thing. Can you explain how they are different?

 

[Deagonx]

You can choose to keep lying about what he said and pretend the phrase "less manifest" is in any way identical to the word "lesser" if you want. It won't make it true.

 

[Transcending]

You can choose to keep lying about what he said and pretend the phrase "less manifest" is in any way identical to the word "lesser" if you want. It won't make it true.

If I was lying it should have been easy for you to explain how they are different, yet even now you can't and can only accuse me of lying. I think that itself proves my point.

 

[Deagonx]

If I was lying it should have been easy for you to explain how they are different, yet even now you can't and can only accuse me of lying. I think that itself proves my point.

It would be easy, yes, but the fact you made the claim in the first place means you're arguing in bad faith.